the age of disaster capitalism:
Through all its various name changes - the war on terror, the war on radical Islam, the war against Islamofascism, the third world war, the long war, the generational war - the basic shape of the conflict has remained unchanged. It is limited by neither time nor space nor target. From a military perspective, these sprawling and amorphous traits make the war on terror an unwinnable proposition. But from an economic perspective, they make it an unbeatable one: not a flash-in-the-pan war that could potentially be won but a new and permanent fixture in the global economic architecture.
(...) In the 90s, tech companies endlessly trumpeted the wonders of the borderless world and the power of information technology to topple authoritarian regimes and bring down walls. Today, inside the disaster capitalism complex, the tools of the information revolution have been flipped to serve the opposite purpose. In the process, mobile phones and web surfing have been turned into powerful tools of mass state surveillance by increasingly authoritarian regimes, with the cooperation of privatised phone companies and search engines, whether it’s Yahoo assisting the Chinese government to pinpoint the location of dissidents or AT&T helping the US National Security Agency to wiretap its customers without a warrant (a practice that the Bush administration claims it has discontinued). The dismantling of borders, the great symbol and promise of globalisation, has been replaced with the exploding industry of border surveillance, from optical scanning and biometric IDs to the planned hi-tech fence on the border between Mexico and the US, worth up to $2.5bn for Boeing and a consortium of other companies.
(...) If the suspect is taken, as a result, to Guantánamo, he may well end up in the new 200-person maximum-security prison constructed by Halliburton. If he is a victim of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” programme, kidnapped off the streets of Milan or while changing planes at a US airport, then whisked to a so-called black site somewhere in the CIA’s archipelago of secret prisons, the hooded prisoner will likely fly in a Boeing 737, designed as a deluxe executive jet, retrofitted for this purpose. According to the New Yorker, Boeing has been acting as the “CIA’s travel agent” - blocking out flightplans for as many as 1,245 rendition voyages, arranging ground crews and even booking hotels. A Spanish police report explains that the work was done by Jeppesen International Trip Planning, a Boeing subsidiary in San Jose. In May 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union launched a lawsuit against the Boeing subsidiary; the company has refused to confirm or deny the allegations.
(...) According to Bill Golden, who runs the job website IntelligenceCareers.com, “Over half of the qualified counter-intelligence experts in the field work for contractors.” If these freelance interrogators are to keep landing lucrative contracts, they must extract from prisoners the kind of “actionable intelligence” their employers in Washington are looking for. It’s a dynamic ripe for abuse: just as prisoners under torture will usually say anything to make the pain stop, contractors have a powerful economic incentive to use whatever techniques are necessary to produce the sought-after information, regardless of its reliability.
(...) Then there is the low-tech version of this application of market “solutions” to the war on terror - the willingness to pay top dollar to pretty much anyone for information about alleged terrorists. During the invasion of Afghanistan, US intelligence agents let it be known that they would pay anywhere from $3,000 to $25,000 for al-Qaida or Taliban fighters handed over to them. “Get wealth and power beyond your dreams,” stated a typical flyer handed out by the US in Afghanistan, introduced as evidence in a 2002 US federal court filing on behalf of several Guantánamo prisoners. “You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces…This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life.”
(...) According to the Pentagon’s own figures, 86% of the prisoners at Guantánamo were handed over by Afghan and Pakistani fighters or agents after the bounties were announced. As of December 2006, the Pentagon had released 360 prisoners from Guantánamo (out of 759 held between 2001 and the end of 2006). The Associated Press was able to track down 245 of them; 205 had been freed or cleared of all charges when they returned to their home countries. It is a track record that is a grave indictment of the quality of intelligence produced by the administration’s market-based approach to terrorist identification.
(...) That kind of wealth is being generated by the disaster complex today, though we rarely hear about it. While the CEOs of the top 34 defence contractors saw their incomes go up an average of 108% between 2001 and 2005, chief executives at other large American companies averaged only 6% over the same period.
Showing posts with label culture of fear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture of fear. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
laboratory for a fortressed world:
Here’s another theory: Israel’s economy isn’t booming despite the political chaos that devours the headlines, but because of it. This phase of development dates back to the mid-nineties, when Israel was in the vanguard of the information revolution – the most tech-dependent economy in the world. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Israel’s economy was devastated, facing its worst year since 1953. Then came 9/11, and suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners.
(...) Within three years, large parts of Israel’s tech economy had been radically repurposed. Put in Friedmanesque terms: Israel went from inventing the networking tools of the “flat world” to selling fences to an apartheid planet. Many of the country’s most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel’s status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of twenty-four-hour-a-day showroom—a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war. And the reason Israel is now enjoying supergrowth is that those companies are busily exporting that model to the world.
(...) Discussions of Israel’s military trade usually focus on the flow of weapons into the country—US-made Caterpillar bulldozers used to destroy homes in the West Bank and British companies supplying parts for F-16s. Overlooked is Israel’s huge and expanding export business. Israel now sends $1.2 billion in “defense” products to the United States—up dramatically from $270 million in 1999. In 2006 Israel exported $3.4 billion in defense products—well over a billion more than it received in US military aid. That makes Israel the fourth-largest arms dealer in the world, overtaking Britain. Much of this growth has been in the so-called “homeland security” sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2 billion—an increase of 20 percent. The key products and services are high-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems – precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock-in the occupied territories.
(...) Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the “global war on terror.”
(...) So in a way Friedman is right: Israel has struck oil. But the oil isn’t the imagination of its techie entrepreneurs. The oil is the war on terror, the state of constant fear that creates a bottomless global demand for devices that watch, listen, contain and target “suspects.” And fear, it turns out, is the ultimate renewable resource.
Here’s another theory: Israel’s economy isn’t booming despite the political chaos that devours the headlines, but because of it. This phase of development dates back to the mid-nineties, when Israel was in the vanguard of the information revolution – the most tech-dependent economy in the world. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Israel’s economy was devastated, facing its worst year since 1953. Then came 9/11, and suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners.
(...) Within three years, large parts of Israel’s tech economy had been radically repurposed. Put in Friedmanesque terms: Israel went from inventing the networking tools of the “flat world” to selling fences to an apartheid planet. Many of the country’s most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel’s status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of twenty-four-hour-a-day showroom—a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war. And the reason Israel is now enjoying supergrowth is that those companies are busily exporting that model to the world.
(...) Discussions of Israel’s military trade usually focus on the flow of weapons into the country—US-made Caterpillar bulldozers used to destroy homes in the West Bank and British companies supplying parts for F-16s. Overlooked is Israel’s huge and expanding export business. Israel now sends $1.2 billion in “defense” products to the United States—up dramatically from $270 million in 1999. In 2006 Israel exported $3.4 billion in defense products—well over a billion more than it received in US military aid. That makes Israel the fourth-largest arms dealer in the world, overtaking Britain. Much of this growth has been in the so-called “homeland security” sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2 billion—an increase of 20 percent. The key products and services are high-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems – precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock-in the occupied territories.
(...) Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the “global war on terror.”
(...) So in a way Friedman is right: Israel has struck oil. But the oil isn’t the imagination of its techie entrepreneurs. The oil is the war on terror, the state of constant fear that creates a bottomless global demand for devices that watch, listen, contain and target “suspects.” And fear, it turns out, is the ultimate renewable resource.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
fear breeds hatred breeds war breeds doom:
Fully 71 percent of Israelis believe that the United States should launch a military attack on Iran if diplomatic efforts fail to halt Tehran's nuclear program, according to a new poll.
Fully 71 percent of Israelis believe that the United States should launch a military attack on Iran if diplomatic efforts fail to halt Tehran's nuclear program, according to a new poll.
Monday, May 7, 2007
feminism and rape:
I walked along my university corridor last week and was drawn to a poster on the wall; it consisted of a woman with a beer in her hand looking a little worse for wear. Behind her an aggressive looking male towered above. The caption read: “Are you making yourself vulnerable?”.
(...) In addition, what message is this sending out to men? They are constantly portrayed as would be perpetrators of violence, with supposedly no control over their actions.
(...) Women should dress appropriately, we should be careful about where we leave our drinks. We must make sure we get into a properly licensed cab. What about the actual perpetrators? What is happening to them?
(...) Isn’t it about time that we saw more advertisements and campaigns aimed at the perpetrators of violence and more work done to prevent, predominantly men, growing up assuming they can have this control over women? During 2004/5 there were 13,322 reported rapes of women to the police, two thirds of these don’t go any further than the police stage (www.rapecrisis.org.uk/stats) . The worrying statistics of late is that its estimated for every rape that occurs only 1% are convicted because so little are reported in the first place and of that few only a minority go on to conviction.
I walked along my university corridor last week and was drawn to a poster on the wall; it consisted of a woman with a beer in her hand looking a little worse for wear. Behind her an aggressive looking male towered above. The caption read: “Are you making yourself vulnerable?”.
(...) In addition, what message is this sending out to men? They are constantly portrayed as would be perpetrators of violence, with supposedly no control over their actions.
(...) Women should dress appropriately, we should be careful about where we leave our drinks. We must make sure we get into a properly licensed cab. What about the actual perpetrators? What is happening to them?
(...) Isn’t it about time that we saw more advertisements and campaigns aimed at the perpetrators of violence and more work done to prevent, predominantly men, growing up assuming they can have this control over women? During 2004/5 there were 13,322 reported rapes of women to the police, two thirds of these don’t go any further than the police stage (www.rapecrisis.org.uk/stats) . The worrying statistics of late is that its estimated for every rape that occurs only 1% are convicted because so little are reported in the first place and of that few only a minority go on to conviction.
a book on guantanamo:
Leading human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith believes the hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, the United States prison camp in Cuba, are treated worse than the Irish hunger strikers during the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Guantanamo hunger strikes began in June 2005. They have now lasted nine times longer than the hunger strikes in Northern Ireland of the early 1980s.
(...) "In 1981, the British recognised that it was unethical to force feed a hunger striker. Twice a day my client, Shaker Aamer, is strapped into a torture chair and a 110 centimetre tube is forced up his nose. Occasionally, it goes into his lungs - which is excruciatingly painful and quite deliberate."
(...) However, some 42 men remain on hunger strike. The longest surviving has lasted 620 days with forced feeding. Stafford Smith's clients, Shaker Aamer and Al Jazeera journalist Sami al Haj, have been on hunger strike for 115 and 106 days respectively.
(...) The strikers are demanding a fair trial, for abuse of the Koran to cease and that juvenile prisoners should not be kept in solitary confinement. They want an end to violations of the Geneva Convention, such as the provision of yellow unsanitary water and inedible food. They also want different sorts of treatment - which depend upon how compliant prisoners are, to stop. Compliant prisoners wear white uniforms while others wear orange and brown uniforms.
(...) He admits to encountering some suspicion from prisoners who think those lawyers who do come into the camp are there to provide a veneer of respectability for the whole inhumane process of detention. But Stafford Smith stresses: "Some of the guys are crazy now, losing their minds. They are being horribly abused. Probably the worst abuse is the daily torture the hunger strikers undergo."
(...) Stafford Smith is keen to point out that Guantanamo is just one of an increasing number of US detention centres all over the world. "There are almost 14,000 people being held in secret prisons from Iraq to Afghanistan and Diego Garcia, to name but a few."
(...) "I think it was Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness who said that the internment process created the greatest recruiting sergeant the IRA ever had. A CIA agent admitted as much in the present context in 2004, when he said that, for every person you put in Guantanamo, it would create 10 who want to blow up the US. Now that figure is more likely to be 1,000 for every new prisoner."
(...) A new threat had to be found to replace the Russians and it is Muslim fundamentalism. But Stafford Smith says: "The idea that the world today faces a greater threat than when the Germans were bombing London to oblivion or when the Russians held massive amounts of nuclear weapons just does not stand up to analysis. The suggestion international laws now need to be torn up because of the threat is foolish and amounts to incredible populism."
Leading human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith believes the hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, the United States prison camp in Cuba, are treated worse than the Irish hunger strikers during the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Guantanamo hunger strikes began in June 2005. They have now lasted nine times longer than the hunger strikes in Northern Ireland of the early 1980s.
(...) "In 1981, the British recognised that it was unethical to force feed a hunger striker. Twice a day my client, Shaker Aamer, is strapped into a torture chair and a 110 centimetre tube is forced up his nose. Occasionally, it goes into his lungs - which is excruciatingly painful and quite deliberate."
(...) However, some 42 men remain on hunger strike. The longest surviving has lasted 620 days with forced feeding. Stafford Smith's clients, Shaker Aamer and Al Jazeera journalist Sami al Haj, have been on hunger strike for 115 and 106 days respectively.
(...) The strikers are demanding a fair trial, for abuse of the Koran to cease and that juvenile prisoners should not be kept in solitary confinement. They want an end to violations of the Geneva Convention, such as the provision of yellow unsanitary water and inedible food. They also want different sorts of treatment - which depend upon how compliant prisoners are, to stop. Compliant prisoners wear white uniforms while others wear orange and brown uniforms.
(...) He admits to encountering some suspicion from prisoners who think those lawyers who do come into the camp are there to provide a veneer of respectability for the whole inhumane process of detention. But Stafford Smith stresses: "Some of the guys are crazy now, losing their minds. They are being horribly abused. Probably the worst abuse is the daily torture the hunger strikers undergo."
(...) Stafford Smith is keen to point out that Guantanamo is just one of an increasing number of US detention centres all over the world. "There are almost 14,000 people being held in secret prisons from Iraq to Afghanistan and Diego Garcia, to name but a few."
(...) "I think it was Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness who said that the internment process created the greatest recruiting sergeant the IRA ever had. A CIA agent admitted as much in the present context in 2004, when he said that, for every person you put in Guantanamo, it would create 10 who want to blow up the US. Now that figure is more likely to be 1,000 for every new prisoner."
(...) A new threat had to be found to replace the Russians and it is Muslim fundamentalism. But Stafford Smith says: "The idea that the world today faces a greater threat than when the Germans were bombing London to oblivion or when the Russians held massive amounts of nuclear weapons just does not stand up to analysis. The suggestion international laws now need to be torn up because of the threat is foolish and amounts to incredible populism."
Sunday, May 6, 2007
on the propaganda for the war on somalia:
Right out of the gate, in the second paragraph, Tomlinson asserts – without any qualification or attribution whatsoever – that those resisting the American-backed invasion of their country by are "threatening to turn the country back into a haven for al-Qaeda." (9/11! 9/11!) Just two paragraphs later, he provides this description of the Islamic Courts council that had brought Somalia its first measure of peace and stability in 15 years before its overthrow by Ethiopian tanks and American bombs:
Just like the Taliban! Osama bin Laden! 9/11! 9/11! At least this paragraph offers one of Tomlinson's rare uses of a source – albeit unnamed ones – to back up his bald assertions. But the import is clear: the Islamic Courts council is the same thing as the Taliban and al Qaeda, and thus the invasion of Somalia is entirely justified as part of the noble War on Terror that President Bush is waging to keep Americans safe.
(...) Nowhere does Tomlinson offer even a pro forma mention of the Islamic Courts' constant denials of any involvement with al Qaeda. Nor does he mention – doubtless because, in his sweet ignorance, he does not know – that the Courts themselves were comprised of various factions of varying degrees of religious fervor, from moderates to more hard-core fundamentalists. They were never simply a monolithic bloc of Taliban-style fanatics. You'd have to look to Mr. Bush's longtime family friends, the Saudi royals, for that kind of thing; their kingdom is by far the most repressive religious regime on the face of the earth – and also a haven for not a few al-Qaeda supporters, including some very highly placed and quite wealthy ones.
(...) Tomlinson breathlessly relates that a whole ten "al Qaeda operatives remain in Somalia," and are "at least partially responsible for the growing violence in the capital." Who knew that these wily al Qaeda operators were somehow able to sneak into the tanks and artillery batteries of the American-trained Ethiopian army, which has been the source of most of the "violence in the capital" in the last month, when more than 1,400 people were killed, most of them civilians? Gadzooks, is there nothing these evil masterminds can't do?
(...) But this is not a story designed to provide readers with the news of what is happening in Somalia. It is designed to convey – without a single dissenting viewpoint – the official line of the Bush Administration regarding the murderous proxy war that it has greenlighted in Somalia. There is no mention of the American air strikes against fleeing refugees in the early days of the war – an ostensible attempt to kill alleged al Qaeda operatives that instead murdered dozens of innocent civilians. There is no mention of the "rendition" of refugees – including innocent American citizens – into Ethiopia's torture chambers. There is no mention of the years, and millions of dollars, that the Bush administration has spent in arming and training the repressive Ethiopian military. There is no mention of the complexities of the political situation in Somalia, just constant invocations of "Taliban" and "al Qaeda" to evoke a Pavlovian response of fear – and unquestioning acquiescence to the Terror War policies of the Bush Administration. After all, who could possibly oppose a righteous operation to keep Somalia from "turning back into a haven for al Qaeda"?
(...)
But then, the Terror War has never been about curtailing the terrorist threat against Americans. This is blatantly obvious, as every aspect of the "War" has only exacerbated terrorism and anti-American feeling around the world. The Terror War is about securing even more loot and power for elite factions in the American Establishment (and selected foreign cronies). Somalia's oil and its strategic location make it a prime target for the Terror Warriors; hence the invasion and the blood-soaked occupation.
Right out of the gate, in the second paragraph, Tomlinson asserts – without any qualification or attribution whatsoever – that those resisting the American-backed invasion of their country by are "threatening to turn the country back into a haven for al-Qaeda." (9/11! 9/11!) Just two paragraphs later, he provides this description of the Islamic Courts council that had brought Somalia its first measure of peace and stability in 15 years before its overthrow by Ethiopian tanks and American bombs:
...Islamic radicals who grabbed power for six months last year, filling Somalia's power vacuum with a strict religious government. Like the Taliban who once ruled Afghanistan and hosted Osama bin Laden, the Somali movement, the Council of Islamic Courts, harbors al-Qaeda terrorists, U.S. officials say.
Just like the Taliban! Osama bin Laden! 9/11! 9/11! At least this paragraph offers one of Tomlinson's rare uses of a source – albeit unnamed ones – to back up his bald assertions. But the import is clear: the Islamic Courts council is the same thing as the Taliban and al Qaeda, and thus the invasion of Somalia is entirely justified as part of the noble War on Terror that President Bush is waging to keep Americans safe.
(...) Nowhere does Tomlinson offer even a pro forma mention of the Islamic Courts' constant denials of any involvement with al Qaeda. Nor does he mention – doubtless because, in his sweet ignorance, he does not know – that the Courts themselves were comprised of various factions of varying degrees of religious fervor, from moderates to more hard-core fundamentalists. They were never simply a monolithic bloc of Taliban-style fanatics. You'd have to look to Mr. Bush's longtime family friends, the Saudi royals, for that kind of thing; their kingdom is by far the most repressive religious regime on the face of the earth – and also a haven for not a few al-Qaeda supporters, including some very highly placed and quite wealthy ones.
(...) Tomlinson breathlessly relates that a whole ten "al Qaeda operatives remain in Somalia," and are "at least partially responsible for the growing violence in the capital." Who knew that these wily al Qaeda operators were somehow able to sneak into the tanks and artillery batteries of the American-trained Ethiopian army, which has been the source of most of the "violence in the capital" in the last month, when more than 1,400 people were killed, most of them civilians? Gadzooks, is there nothing these evil masterminds can't do?
(...) But this is not a story designed to provide readers with the news of what is happening in Somalia. It is designed to convey – without a single dissenting viewpoint – the official line of the Bush Administration regarding the murderous proxy war that it has greenlighted in Somalia. There is no mention of the American air strikes against fleeing refugees in the early days of the war – an ostensible attempt to kill alleged al Qaeda operatives that instead murdered dozens of innocent civilians. There is no mention of the "rendition" of refugees – including innocent American citizens – into Ethiopia's torture chambers. There is no mention of the years, and millions of dollars, that the Bush administration has spent in arming and training the repressive Ethiopian military. There is no mention of the complexities of the political situation in Somalia, just constant invocations of "Taliban" and "al Qaeda" to evoke a Pavlovian response of fear – and unquestioning acquiescence to the Terror War policies of the Bush Administration. After all, who could possibly oppose a righteous operation to keep Somalia from "turning back into a haven for al Qaeda"?
(...)
But then, the Terror War has never been about curtailing the terrorist threat against Americans. This is blatantly obvious, as every aspect of the "War" has only exacerbated terrorism and anti-American feeling around the world. The Terror War is about securing even more loot and power for elite factions in the American Establishment (and selected foreign cronies). Somalia's oil and its strategic location make it a prime target for the Terror Warriors; hence the invasion and the blood-soaked occupation.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
french elections:
The pro-Sarko electorate is not the new, dynamic freedom-loving France. That France voted mostly for Ségolène Royal. The Sarko France is aging and scared. Among voters aged 18 to 24, 34 per cent voted for the Socialist woman candidate. Twenty percent voted for centrist François Bayrou and only 19 per cent voted for Sarkozy (who is not, as English-language reports persist in calling him, a "Gaullist" ; "Bushist" would be more accurate. Sarkozy's largest block of voters were retired people. He won 44 per cent of the electorate over 65.
(...) Asked which issue was paramount in their choice, 46 per cent of Ségolène's voters express their concern for "social inequalities", and 66 per cent want to live in a society "with more personal freedom". Sarko voters are indifferent to those themes, but give first place to "the fight against insecurity"; 88 per cent demand a society "with more order and authority". And 26 per cent of Sarkozy voters favor "the struggle against immigration", compared to only 5 per cent of Royal voters.
(...)But Ségolène led Sarkozy among intermediary professions and white collar workers, as well as blue collar workers--but in the last category, Le Pen came in first with 26 per cent -- by far his highest score in any category (Le Pen got 10.5 per cent of the national vote).
The pro-Sarko electorate is not the new, dynamic freedom-loving France. That France voted mostly for Ségolène Royal. The Sarko France is aging and scared. Among voters aged 18 to 24, 34 per cent voted for the Socialist woman candidate. Twenty percent voted for centrist François Bayrou and only 19 per cent voted for Sarkozy (who is not, as English-language reports persist in calling him, a "Gaullist" ; "Bushist" would be more accurate. Sarkozy's largest block of voters were retired people. He won 44 per cent of the electorate over 65.
(...) Asked which issue was paramount in their choice, 46 per cent of Ségolène's voters express their concern for "social inequalities", and 66 per cent want to live in a society "with more personal freedom". Sarko voters are indifferent to those themes, but give first place to "the fight against insecurity"; 88 per cent demand a society "with more order and authority". And 26 per cent of Sarkozy voters favor "the struggle against immigration", compared to only 5 per cent of Royal voters.
(...)But Ségolène led Sarkozy among intermediary professions and white collar workers, as well as blue collar workers--but in the last category, Le Pen came in first with 26 per cent -- by far his highest score in any category (Le Pen got 10.5 per cent of the national vote).
Sunday, April 15, 2007
on the 'culture of fear' that underlies the war of terror:
The war on terror has disseminated fear everywhere. Fear is a much greater threat to nations than the most lethal weapons. Fear numbs the mind and sparks the weakest, most cowardly and basest instincts. It makes people easy prey to the whims and follies of demagogues and dictators. It was by playing on fear that Bush could mount his invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whenever his project bogs down or he comes under fire, Bush instructs his aides to drum up people's fear of another terrorist attack. This was the climate that smoothed the passage of the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil and personal liberties under government surveillance and secret detentions. This act, moreover, set the model for other governments, which never would have dared introduce a law like it before. Now that the greatest democracy on earth has it, it has become the right of every ruler on earth to impose a patriot act of his own; in our case, to make it an eternal constitutional cornerstone and perpetual font of legislation. The perpetuation of fear has turned back the tide of democracy, stymied the march of liberty, and let absolute rulers rule more absolutely.
(...) [and a boom for business?] But the culture of fear has also sparked a great boom in the private security sector. On top of the slew of already pre-existing security firms -- some transnational -- there have emerged hundreds of new ones, all dedicated to providing protection to politicians, film and music stars, influential families, and the rich and famous of every stripe. With all those guards, hidden cameras and metal detectors everywhere, is it any wonder that everyone is feeling increasingly nervous? Security now means big money. In Iraq alone, some 100,000 private security entrepreneurs are raking in billions of dollars protecting US armed forces personnel and those America installed in government there. The phenomenon is widespread and growing -- here in Egypt, too -- and it feeds on the culture of fear, without the continuation of which some very important and wealthy people would lose a lot of money and influence.
The war on terror has disseminated fear everywhere. Fear is a much greater threat to nations than the most lethal weapons. Fear numbs the mind and sparks the weakest, most cowardly and basest instincts. It makes people easy prey to the whims and follies of demagogues and dictators. It was by playing on fear that Bush could mount his invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whenever his project bogs down or he comes under fire, Bush instructs his aides to drum up people's fear of another terrorist attack. This was the climate that smoothed the passage of the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil and personal liberties under government surveillance and secret detentions. This act, moreover, set the model for other governments, which never would have dared introduce a law like it before. Now that the greatest democracy on earth has it, it has become the right of every ruler on earth to impose a patriot act of his own; in our case, to make it an eternal constitutional cornerstone and perpetual font of legislation. The perpetuation of fear has turned back the tide of democracy, stymied the march of liberty, and let absolute rulers rule more absolutely.
(...) [and a boom for business?] But the culture of fear has also sparked a great boom in the private security sector. On top of the slew of already pre-existing security firms -- some transnational -- there have emerged hundreds of new ones, all dedicated to providing protection to politicians, film and music stars, influential families, and the rich and famous of every stripe. With all those guards, hidden cameras and metal detectors everywhere, is it any wonder that everyone is feeling increasingly nervous? Security now means big money. In Iraq alone, some 100,000 private security entrepreneurs are raking in billions of dollars protecting US armed forces personnel and those America installed in government there. The phenomenon is widespread and growing -- here in Egypt, too -- and it feeds on the culture of fear, without the continuation of which some very important and wealthy people would lose a lot of money and influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)